[2020] KEHC 9108 (KLR)
The court found that the mandatory death sentence imposed on the petitioner was unconstitutional following the Supreme Court's decision in Francis Muruatetu and Others vs Republic [2017] eKLR. The court considered the brutal circumstances of the offence, the petitioner's mitigation, age, remorse, and rehabilitation....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEHC 9108 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Gayo Arero Jillo; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Petition 6 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Resentencing / Ruling on Re Sentencing
- Outcome
- Death sentence set aside and substituted with 25 years' imprisonment from the original date of sentencing.
- Judges
- A Mabeya
- Legal Topics
- Murder Sentencing, Mandatory Death Penalty, Resentencing Guidelines, Mitigation Factors
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Gayo Arero Jillo
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Resentencing / Ruling on Re Sentencing
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the mandatory death sentence for murder is unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court decision in Francis Muruatetu and Others vs Republic [2017] eKLR.
- 2 Whether the petitioner is entitled to a review of sentence based on mitigation and other relevant factors.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the mandatory death sentence imposed on the petitioner was unconstitutional following the Supreme Court's decision in Francis Muruatetu and Others vs Republic [2017] eKLR. The court considered the brutal circumstances of the offence, the petitioner's mitigation, age, remorse, and rehabilitation. Balancing these factors, the court determined that a sentence of 25 years' imprisonment, running from the original date of sentencing, was appropriate. The court exercised its discretion to substitute the death sentence with a term of years, emphasizing the need for individualized sentencing and the consideration of all relevant mitigating and aggravating circumstances.
Court Disposition
Death sentence set aside and substituted with 25 years' imprisonment from the original date of sentencing.
Orders
- The death sentence imposed on the petitioner is set aside.
- The petitioner is sentenced to 25 years' imprisonment from 7/11/2011.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU
PETITION NO. 6 OF 2019
GAYO ARERO JILLO........................ PETITIONER
VERSUS
REPUBLIC ..................................RESPONDENT
RULING ON RE-SENTENSING
1. The petitioner, Gayo Arero Jillo, was convicted and sentenced to death for murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code. It was alleged that on 1/12/2008 at Sessi sub-location in Moyale District within the then Eastern Province, the appellant murdered Nuria Abdullahi Dima.
2. Being aggrieved by that decision, the petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeal which appeal was dismissed on 25/7/2013.
3. Vide his Motion on Notice dated 4/1/2019, the petitioner petitioned this Court for the review of his sentence on the basis of the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Francis Muruatetu and Others vs Republic [2017] eKLR.
4. In that case, the Supreme Court of Kenya held that the mandatory nature of the death sentence was unconstitutional as it denied the Court its discretion in sentencing. The Court proceeded to set out the criteria or the principles that should guide a Court in sentencing. Some of the considerations are age of the offender, being a first offender, whether the offender pleaded guilty, the character and record of the offender, commission of the offence in response to gender-based violence, remorsefulness of the offender, the possibility of reform and social re-adaptation of the offender and any other factor that the Court considers relevant.
5. I have considered the foregoing and the circumstances under which the offence was committed. The petitioner set upon the deceased with a club which had a metal head breaking her collar bone, hit the deceased’s head against the wall, tied a rope around her neck, hands and legs. Continued hitting and stepping on the deceased’s stomach until she died. She died a slow and painful death at the hands of the petitioner.
6. The state urged that the death sentence be substituted with life imprisonment. In his mitigation, the petitioner stated that he is a 1st offender. He is rehabilitated, remorseful and has asked for forgiveness. He regrets his actions. He was 53 years when he was convicted and now he is 63 years.
7. Taking into consideration the facts of the case the manner in which offence was committed, Section 339 of the CPC, the mitigation as well as the age of the petitioner, I set aside the death sentence and substitute therefor with the sentence of imprisonment for 25 years. The sentence shall run from the date the petitioner was first sentenced, that is, 7/11/2011.
Signed at Meru
A. MABEYA
JUDGE
DATEDand DELIVEREDat Meru this 23rd day of January, 2020.
A. ONG’INJO
JUDGE